[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2023 (Grand Prix Cars)

[CAEdevice]

I confirm the two points by Max, and I add some small detail suggestions.

1) To add something like a minimum curvature radius on sidepods (to be checked only by request to avoid complicated and generalised check) in order to limit the chimney effect of the cooling outlets (see CAEdevice as example)

2) To convert the 10mm thickness rule in a 5mm rule for floor and floor strakes, maybe with a mandatory full round at the start/end edge to avoid the use of cuspides.

3) Provided safety cell is ok and so are other internal volumes, but I would prefer more rounded edges to make integration with our geometry easier

4) To model inlet brake cooling surface and to include a measure/rule to check that resultabt average pressure on it is positive (it would not require a manual check, only an automated measure)

5) To publish rake angle numbers after each race

6) To add "from above" and "from below" projections in post processing for velocity and pressure maps.

[yinlad]

So, I would finally like to get back to MVRC.
First I would like to ask the team captains of 2023, what they (dis-) liked and what they would like to have changed for 2024?
Thank you very much.

I had a think about this today, it mostly echoes points made here already.

1) Reduce the engine cover volume / get rid of the sails.

2) Suspension design freedom. I'd like to see something like this where we can make our own aero shrouds around smaller internal mandatory members, example mandatory part replacement in second image.




For this I imagine a sub set of rules where the arms have to be straight, one section in X, Y, Z. The usual 'no funny business' requirements

3) I also think including some self placed mandatory side impact structures would provide an interesting addition. One above a certain Z value and one below.

4) Similarly I'd like to be able to place the mirrors within the mirror volume (not sure how much freedom teams get IRL with this)

5) We mentioned briefly potentially some 2026 influence, so a narrow front wing? But the actual regs are basically mythical at the moment so perhaps we can leave this out for '24.

[G-raph]

I'd suggest that we go for 0.5mm roughness which is the 3rd image. From asking around a bit that seems to be a reasonable value and makes our tire wake look much better.

That's great work Max and I agree that going with these settings should make the wheel wakes more realistic.
Would you be able to share pictures of X-slices between the front wheels and the floor? I'm curious to see how the various parts of the wake are affected. Sometimes with roughness settings things can go a bit funny around the contact patch.

[LVDH]

This went better than expected, very fast and great answers. I pretty much agree on all of them.
Keep it coming...

[spacehead3]

I'd suggest that we go for 0.5mm roughness which is the 3rd image. From asking around a bit that seems to be a reasonable value and makes our tire wake look much better.

Would you be able to share pictures of X-slices between the front wheels and the floor?

Looks okay to me. This was all with the "MVRC" template so of course we will want to have Andre verify that it works okay in the full run too.

[spacehead3]

Looks okay to me.

Just realized these are Z slices
That's what I get for posting before coffee. But I think it shows what you want anyway.

[CAEdevice]

super cool studio. If you make a post on LinkedIn we immediately share the content (or we make a post and tag the author)

[G-raph]

Thanks Max. Yes these Z-slices show the (small) differences close to the ground quite well.


Going back to the original question, I have only 2 requests :

1 - I don't think we need new mandatory parts, but if there are new ones for 2024, please publish them well in advance of the first race and don't change them for the rest of the season. Same thing with the regulation boxes.

2 - There are still some rules (airbox, floor...) that are at best ambiguous or at worst contradictory, so they should be rewritten for maximum clarity. I'm happy to volunteer for that. If there are some new rules for 2024, again please publish them well in advance with a clear explanation of what the intent of them is, so that we can all review them and get the wording right well before the first race.

[LVDH]

2 - There are still some rules (airbox, floor...) that are at best ambiguous or at worst contradictory, so they should be rewritten for maximum clarity.

Best is to just list your concerns here on the forum. But if you want, you can also get directly in touch with me. At a minimum, you have my email address.



Generally, I will have a new version well in advance of the first race ready. Right now, I am aiming for the Suzuka race of F1 to be our first race, so I have to hurry.

[yinlad]

Here's a more solidified idea of what I was thinking about a replacement RSUS mandatory part. More or less the same as 2023 but with 25mm tubular arms that we can build around.

Edit: will need to update the link

[G-raph]

Best is to just list your concerns here on the forum. But if you want, you can also get directly in touch with me. At a minimum, you have my email address.

Sure, here is the rewording (in pink, with my comments in blue) I hope no one would have objections to :

6.1.1 Each heat exchanger is made up of a single planar shape extruded a distance of 60mm in a direction normal to its front face.
Just a typo!

7.1.3 Must be entirely located within the bodywork volume, at least 1880mm rearward of the FWCL, and at least 700mm above the reference plane.
As written, the rules were forcing the inlet to be in a specific, impractical location. We have all interpreted it this way anyway, but this makes it clearer for any new competitor.

7.1.4 The engine inlet inner template is the volume formed by an extrusion of the inlet surface rearward along its normal for a distance of 100mm. This template must be entirely enclosed in bodywork and must not intersect any other parts or templates with exception of the engine intake plenum.
The other 7.1 rules clearly enforce a single symmetrical inlet, so the use of plural in 7.1.4 was contradictory.

9.7 An intersection of an X-plane with parts inside of RV_Vehiclebody_MVRC_V04 at X=-550mm must produce a face with a minimal area of 44,000mm².
Another typo!

12.3 When intersected with any X-plane, it must only produce only one continuous closed section with all parts of the section either visibly from above or below.
The big one that caused controversy after Race 01, which was fixed... except it wasn't as there was still a mixed use of singular and plurals. So this brings it in line with 12.4 which was re-written properly.


Finally, I would remove 12.2.1.1 and create a new RS-FLOOR-PLAN surface that goes around the floor edge box, as it would simplify the wording but more importantly clarify 12.5 as at the moment the floor needs to be the lowest part in a region where there could potentially be no floor.

12.2.1 Entirely obscure RS-02-FLOOR-PLAN_V03 when viewed from below.
12.2.1.1 Elements of Floor inside of RV_FLOOR_EDGE_V01 are allowed to leave visible gaps to RS-02-FLOOR-PLAN_V03.
...
12.5 when viewed from below, Floor must be the lowest part of the car within the area defined by RS-Floor-plan.

[CAEdevice]

Good job G-Raph, especially 12.5

[keithbrambilla]

Hey everyone, some-time-lurker here.
I was thinking of maybe joining the competition next time around and was thus CADing up a rough parametric model, but soon realized I have a doubt. My idea is to create a large body (dark green in the picture below) that encloses various mandatory parts like the safety cell and engine which would not be meshed inside to save some meshing and computing time. Than from the edges of that body I would build the accessory body parts like the sidepod and the rear part of the engine cover as 10 mm thick bodies. That means that the green body would intersect and cut in half some mandatory parts like the gearbox and black cylinder. Would that be a problem meshing or rules wise? Or would the mesher simply wrap around the effective shape considering both the MAND parts and mine?
Thanks in advance, really interesting competition!

[yinlad]

Hey everyone, some-time-lurker here.
I was thinking of maybe joining the competition next time around and was thus CADing up a rough parametric model, but soon realized I have a doubt. My idea is to create a large body (dark green in the picture below) that encloses various mandatory parts like the safety cell and engine which would not be meshed inside to save some meshing and computing time. Than from the edges of that body I would build the accessory body parts like the sidepod and the rear part of the engine cover as 10 mm thick bodies. That means that the green body would intersect and cut in half some mandatory parts like the gearbox and black cylinder. Would that be a problem meshing or rules wise? Or would the mesher simply wrap around the effective shape considering both the MAND parts and mine?
Thanks in advance, really interesting competition!

https://i.imgur.com/tzgUWA3.png

Hey, would be great to see you in the challenge. As for the question, so long as it's a solid, it should be fine, the meshing should handle the things you are concerned about. Whether it would increase or decrease the time to mesh, I am unsure

[LVDH]

6.1.1 Each heat exchanger is made up of a single planar shape extruded a distance of 60mm in a direction normal to its front face.
Just a typo!

7.1.3 Must be entirely located within the bodywork volume, at least 1880mm rearward of the FWCL, and at least 700mm above the reference plane.
As written, the rules were forcing the inlet to be in a specific, impractical location. We have all interpreted it this way anyway, but this makes it clearer for any new competitor.

7.1.4 The engine inlet inner template is the volume formed by an extrusion of the inlet surface rearward along its normal for a distance of 100mm. This template must be entirely enclosed in bodywork and must not intersect any other parts or templates with exception of the engine intake plenum.
The other 7.1 rules clearly enforce a single symmetrical inlet, so the use of plural in 7.1.4 was contradictory.

9.7 An intersection of an X-plane with parts inside of RV_Vehiclebody_MVRC_V04 at X=-550mm must produce a face with a minimal area of 44,000mm².
Another typo!

12.3 When intersected with any X-plane, it must only produce only one continuous closed section with all parts of the section either visibly from above or below.
The big one that caused controversy after Race 01, which was fixed... except it wasn't as there was still a mixed use of singular and plurals. So this brings it in line with 12.4 which was re-written properly.


Finally, I would remove 12.2.1.1 and create a new RS-FLOOR-PLAN surface that goes around the floor edge box, as it would simplify the wording but more importantly clarify 12.5 as at the moment the floor needs to be the lowest part in a region where there could potentially be no floor.

12.2.1 Entirely obscure RS-02-FLOOR-PLAN_V03 when viewed from below.
12.2.1.1 Elements of Floor inside of RV_FLOOR_EDGE_V01 are allowed to leave visible gaps to RS-02-FLOOR-PLAN_V03.
...
12.5 when viewed from below, Floor must be the lowest part of the car within the area defined by RS-Floor-plan.

Very good work, thank you. One morning reading he rules, I also noticed all these seemingly undetected typos. Finding your own mistakes is always hard, so I am very happy about all this.

Hey everyone, some-time-lurker here.
I was thinking of maybe joining the competition next time around and was thus CADing up a rough parametric model, but soon realized I have a doubt. My idea is to create a large body (dark green in the picture below) that encloses various mandatory parts like the safety cell and engine which would not be meshed inside to save some meshing and computing time. Than from the edges of that body I would build the accessory body parts like the sidepod and the rear part of the engine cover as 10 mm thick bodies. That means that the green body would intersect and cut in half some mandatory parts like the gearbox and black cylinder. Would that be a problem meshing or rules wise? Or would the mesher simply wrap around the effective shape considering both the MAND parts and mine?
Thanks in advance, really interesting competition!

Without wanting to give a definitive answer, I am pretty sure this would be rule complaint.
Regarding meshing, I am 100% sure the more volume you block, the smaller the mesh will be, reducing meshing time and also CFD run time.
How this affects simulated vehicle performance is a different question. You will have to try and hopefully be open about the results. It might be a good idea to mandate such a closed volume in the body, as it is not a design area that we should be focusing on, while on the other hand, it will affect vehicle performance and a blocked volume will reduce computing times for us all, opening up the possibility to refine the mesh in other areas.